Possible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

With the current technology, is it feasible to build a modern submarine aircraft carrier?

Even though the weapon was used during WW2, it seemed to me that it was overlooked while surface carriers were considered the primary weapon of choice
in naval warfare in past, present and future, but I was hoping that submarine aircraft carrier would have some potential.

How much would you think cost for such a boat?

Its probably certain it would carry fewer aircraft because of a smaller size of the boat, unless we decided to build a bigger boat the same size of
the Nimitz class or bigger.

It took hours on the surface to launch the planes. They had to be disassembled to fit into the hangar, so to launch them they had to sit on the
surface and reattach the wings to them. And they could only carry two planes. Great for psychological warfare, not so good for real damage.

The idea seemed good at the time, but technology just didn't exist back then for the weapon to be taken full advantage of.

You might be on to something now there Delta because maybe the conditions and technology has advanced far enough that we can build a large enough
submarine that aircraft can be launched without having to be dismantled while surfaced. Or maybe new aircraft all together could be designed to
accompany the ship?

One can always fantasize I presume. By the way where did you get that photo?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It took hours on the surface to launch the planes. They had to be disassembled to fit into the hangar, so to launch them they had to sit on the
surface and reattach the wings to them. And they could only carry two planes. Great for psychological warfare, not so good for real damage.

That was then, this is now. Its not just 2 planes, and not about attaching wings anymore that is considered an obstacle.

You're still going to have a SERIOUSLY limited amount of space to put planes. It would be more of a psychological weapon than a really effective
weapon. You might not have to attach the wings anymore (in the case of a swing wing design), but unless you're going to build a HUGE launching
platform, you're not going to have many planes.

Another drawback is how to recover the planes. In WWII they used floatplanes. They would land next to the carrier, and they had a crane to put them
back on the deck. If you want to land them back on the sub, you just doubled your size. It would be a MONSTROUS submarine, and probably not able to
dock in most of your bases, because they aren't deep enough for it.

You could put VTOLs on it, but even if you use them, you're still looking at a huge size to it, and places like Pearl Harbor, which is one of the
USN's major shipyards in the Pacific can barely take some of the newer CVNs.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You're still going to have a SERIOUSLY limited amount of space to put planes. It would be more of a psychological weapon than a really effective
weapon. You might not have to attach the wings anymore (in the case of a swing wing design), but unless you're going to build a HUGE launching
platform, you're not going to have many planes.

Another drawback is how to recover the planes. In WWII they used floatplanes. They would land next to the carrier, and they had a crane to put them
back on the deck. If you want to land them back on the sub, you just doubled your size. It would be a MONSTROUS submarine, and probably not able to
dock in most of your bases, because they aren't deep enough for it.

You could put VTOLs on it, but even if you use them, you're still looking at a huge size to it, and places like Pearl Harbor, which is one of the
USN's major shipyards in the Pacific can barely take some of the newer CVNs.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by Zaphod58]

I was going to mention VTOL aircraft that currently has come into existence that the Japanese nor the U.S. had during WW2.

But you already mentioned
it.

But as I have mentioned before that this type of boat would carry fewer aircraft unless its bigger. It would still have significant impact both
tactical and psychological if the aircraft are stealthy. Fewer aircraft could achieve much than conventional aicraft in my opinion.

You're thinking far too small, all of those problems can simply be solved by building things larger. Also with today's technology getting smaller
and more integrated, construction of mass vessels is even more plausible than before.

All it really needs is enough resources and enough backing to happen. If you want it hard enough it can happen.

And Delta, the pic looks like it's from a video game to be honest because I recall seeing it else where just can't remember where.

Heres another pic of a submarine aircraft carrier. Of course this is an old artist concept of what it could look like. But I was pointing out that
it could have a flat landing deck for the VTOL aircraft, instead none in the first pic I posted. Unless the deck was opened as a hangar for aircraft
to land in, and it closes.

Trust me, even I would not agree that the aircraft that is launching like a rocket launcher in that pic would not be possible.

Dont think there will be any sub aircraft carriers for a while. But its good to keep coming up with different ideas. Keeps things fresh. What I would
like to see though, is a flying aircraft carrier. Like the ones in sky captain. Didnt care for the movie,but the concept is nice.

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Dont think there will be any sub aircraft carriers for a while. But its good to keep coming up with different ideas. Keeps things fresh. What I would
like to see though, is a flying aircraft carrier. Like the ones in sky captain. Didnt care for the movie,but the concept is nice.

When I first read the post, I was thinking - well it would have to be a flat top boat, cuz thats how aircraft carriers launch. But here's the thing -
With magnetic technology coming to fruition, things are becoming alot different these days.

You can reduce the size of the flat surface ontop of the boat using mag locks. Even the new CVN-X carrier is supposed to be using these new-fangled
mag locks to recover birds. Which is not only more quiet, but uses less space to stop the bird then using steal arresting cables.

Secondly, if you can use mag locks to recover birds, you can use them to launch them. If you, per-se - you could figure out a way to mag launch a bird
from an inclosed tube (almost sort of like a torpedo, with the opening just above the surface ) you wouldn't have to worry about reassembling
aircraft before launch. You just runem from the bay to the tube into the air. Of course recovering them would be a pain in the arse....but i haven't
gotten there yet. So stay tuned ;P

How effective would a subcarrier be (i'm asking not arguing)? From what i've read so far it might be possible with VTOLs, but how does match or
surpass the threat that a modern carrier with supersonic aircraft posses? If they do make this thing, it would be huge. Wouldn't that make it a much
easier target to detect and detroy?

When I first read the post, I was thinking - well it would have to be a flat top boat, cuz thats how aircraft carriers launch. But here's the thing -
With magnetic technology coming to fruition, things are becoming alot different these days.

You can reduce the size of the flat surface ontop of the boat using mag locks. Even the new CVN-X carrier is supposed to be using these new-fangled
mag locks to recover birds. Which is not only more quiet, but uses less space to stop the bird then using steal arresting cables.

Secondly, if you can use mag locks to recover birds, you can use them to launch them. If you, per-se - you could figure out a way to mag launch a bird
from an inclosed tube (almost sort of like a torpedo, with the opening just above the surface ) you wouldn't have to worry about reassembling
aircraft before launch. You just runem from the bay to the tube into the air. Of course recovering them would be a pain in the arse....but i haven't
gotten there yet. So stay tuned ;P

They're NOT using maglocks to recover. They're using electromagnetic catapults to LAUNCH however. They're going to a three wire, instead of four
wire recovery system, that uses larger wires, which will reduce the replacement costs, and give a longer time between replacement. They started that
with the Ronald Reagan.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.